Metafor

ULiege - Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: metafor.ltas.ulg.ac.be » Commits » 2018 » Commit 2018-07-03
Trace:
commit:2018:07_03

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
commit:2018:07_03 [2018/07/03 12:09] – [Boundary conditions] boemercommit:2018:07_03 [2019/04/08 14:38] (current) – [Versions and folder structure] boemer
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Commit 2018-07-03 ====== ====== Commit 2018-07-03 ======
  
-In this commit, the Metafor component of the new coupling procedure with Metalub is added.  First, the version and folder structure is explained (which Metalub version is coherent with the current Metafor version? what versions did Carretta use in his coupling procedure?).  Then, the detail of the Metafor model are described: geometry, mesh, material, boundary conditions, data extraction.+In this commit, the Metafor component of the new coupling procedure with Metalub is added.  First, the version and folder structure is explained (which Metalub version is coherent with the current Metafor version? what versions did Carretta use in his coupling procedure?).  Then, the details of the Metafor model are described: geometry, mesh, material, boundary conditions, data extraction, regression tests.
  
  
 ===== Versions and folder structure ===== ===== Versions and folder structure =====
  
-This commit is related to the commits 1454 to 1456 of Metalub.  For optimal conherence between Metalub and Metafor, **commit 1456 of Metalub** should be checked out with this version of Metafor, if the coupling procedure is used.+This commit is related to the commits 1454 to 1456 of Metalub.  For optimal coherence between Metalub and Metafor, **commit 1456 of Metalub** should be checked out with this version of Metafor, if the coupling procedure is used.
  
 The Metafor component of Carretta's version of the coupling procedure was kept in Metafor, although it was deleted in Metalub due to a significant code architecture dependence, i.e. it was very complex to add another co-existant coupling component in Metalub without deleting Carretta's version, which had in any case significant drawbacks (see commit 1454 of Metalub).  The **Carretta's old coupling procedure can be used by checking out the commits 3071 and 1376 of Metafor and Metalub**, respectively. The Metafor component of Carretta's version of the coupling procedure was kept in Metafor, although it was deleted in Metalub due to a significant code architecture dependence, i.e. it was very complex to add another co-existant coupling component in Metalub without deleting Carretta's version, which had in any case significant drawbacks (see commit 1454 of Metalub).  The **Carretta's old coupling procedure can be used by checking out the commits 3071 and 1376 of Metafor and Metalub**, respectively.
Line 56: Line 56:
 Different ways of computing the relative contact area are possible.  Carretta computed the contact area as illustrated in the following figure, which is coherent with the contact force computation.  More precisely, if a node of the strip is suddenly in contact with the roll, the contact area increases by the contact area associated to this node, which is equal to the sum of the half-lengths of the incident segments of the node multiplied by the out-of-plane thickness.  To obtain the relative contact area $A = A_{r}/A_{a}$, the total contact area $A_{r}$ is divided by the total length of the strip profile and the out-of-plane thickness, which are assumed to be an approximation of the apparent contact area $A_{a}$.  Depending on the shape of the strip profile, different relative contact areas $A$ can be obtained for the same contact area $A_{r}$.  This is why a different way of computing the relative contact area was introduced. Different ways of computing the relative contact area are possible.  Carretta computed the contact area as illustrated in the following figure, which is coherent with the contact force computation.  More precisely, if a node of the strip is suddenly in contact with the roll, the contact area increases by the contact area associated to this node, which is equal to the sum of the half-lengths of the incident segments of the node multiplied by the out-of-plane thickness.  To obtain the relative contact area $A = A_{r}/A_{a}$, the total contact area $A_{r}$ is divided by the total length of the strip profile and the out-of-plane thickness, which are assumed to be an approximation of the apparent contact area $A_{a}$.  Depending on the shape of the strip profile, different relative contact areas $A$ can be obtained for the same contact area $A_{r}$.  This is why a different way of computing the relative contact area was introduced.
  
-**Add figure!!!**+{{ :commit:2018:07_03:cplmtlbcontactareaold.png?500 |}}
  
 In this coupling procedure, the approach illustrated in the following figure was not only implemented to obtain a more objective measure of the relative contact area, but also to have a smoother evolution of the relative contact area, i.e. previously, the contact area increased suddenly by the nodal contact area, when the respective node of the strip got in contact with the roll.  Although this smoothness intuitively seems to lead to better results, this has still to be tested. In this coupling procedure, the approach illustrated in the following figure was not only implemented to obtain a more objective measure of the relative contact area, but also to have a smoother evolution of the relative contact area, i.e. previously, the contact area increased suddenly by the nodal contact area, when the respective node of the strip got in contact with the roll.  Although this smoothness intuitively seems to lead to better results, this has still to be tested.
  
-**Add figure!!!**+{{ :commit:2018:07_03:cplmtlbcontactareanew.png?500 |}}
  
  
 +===== Regression tests =====
 +
 +As mentionned earlier, the following tests were added:
 +  * aspCrushing.boemer.tests.mtfrTest5B4DryLinear.py
 +  * aspCrushing.boemer.tests.mtfrTest5B4LubLinear.py
 +
 +To check whether these tests do not change from one version of Metafor to the next, only one specific value per test is currently added to the TSC.  It is the relative contact area $A$ at -5.8 mm in the roll bite.
 +
 +
 +===== Added [a] / deleted [d] / modified [m] / renamed [r] general files/folders ======
 +
 +<code>
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/__init__.py
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests/__init__.py
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests/bcDry
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests/bcDry/res_bc_epsx.ascii
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests/bcDry/res_bc_pi.ascii
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests/bcDry/res_bc_x.ascii
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests/bcLub
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests/bcLub/res_bc_epsx.ascii
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests/bcLub/res_bc_pi.ascii
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests/bcLub/res_bc_pl.ascii
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests/bcLub/res_bc_x.ascii
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests/mtfrTest5B4DryLinear.py
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests/mtfrTest5B4LubLinear.py
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tools
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tools/__init__.py
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tools/evolutionFunction.py
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tools/extractors.py
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tools/flattening.py
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tools/geoLinear.py
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tools/Profile.py
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tools/Vector.py
 +
 +[m] aspCrushing/CMakeLists.txt
 +[m] mtMain/battery.py
 +</code>
 +
 +
 +===== Added [a] / deleted [d] / modified [m] / renamed [r] test cases ======
 +
 +<code>
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests/mtfrTest5B4DryLinear.py
 +[a] aspCrushing/boemer/tests/mtfrTest5B4LubLinear.py
 +</code>
 +
 +
 + --- // [[dominik.boemer@uliege.be|Dominik Boemer]] 2018/07/03 14:30 //
commit/2018/07_03.1530612569.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/07/03 12:09 by boemer
Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki